Proceedings of the Electroacoustic Music Studies Network Conference The Art of Electroacoustic Music, Sheffield, June 2015 www.ems-network.org Aural atoms and structures: From electroacoustic ear training to analysis and back again Eldad Tsabary Concordia University, Montreal [email protected] Abstract Analysis in electroacoustics (Ea) is an aural necessity. We analyse to understand what we hear, but we also need trained ears in order to analyse, because analysis requires detailed content, which in Ea is available mostly in sonic forms (i.e. not in music scores). This interdependence of analysis and ear training has been the basis of Ea aural training courses at Concordia University in Montreal, which I have been developing for the past decade. These courses begin with an atomistic approach, which trains students in breaking aural stimuli into the smallest possible parts (aural atoms) and thus extracting more evidence for analysis from them. Once the students’ ears become focused and detailed, the courses proceed with a synergistic analytical approach, aimed at training students to assemble and integrate aural atoms into synergetic structures – perceivable higher-level units that have properties that are different from those of their parts. This structuring process provides additional evidence from higher hierarchical levels of organization. Precision, detail, and organization thus come from a spiralling rigorous practice of ear training and analysis back and forth. Introduction We analyse electroacoustic (Ea) music to hear it better and to understand what we hear. But we also need to hear better in order to analyse, because content for analysis in Ea contexts is typically available exclusively in sonic forms – not written musical scores. With inspiration rooted in auditory scene analysis (ASA) (see Bregman, 1990), the interdependence of hearing and analysis has been the basis of an Ea aural training method at Concordia University in Montreal, which I have been developing for the past decade. Given in aural training classes twice-a-week for two years, this method serves as a foundational aural training platform for music students who major in Ea studies. These aural training courses begin with an atomistic approach, which trains students in segmenting aural stimuli into the smallest possible parts (aural atoms) and extracting more information from them. Once the students’ hearing becomes focused and detailed, the courses proceed with a synergistic analytical approach, aimed at training students to assemble and integrate aural atoms into synergetic structures – perceivable higher-level units that have properties that are different from those of their parts. As listeners become skilled in this structural hearing, they develop the ability to switch among different segmentation/integration schemes and to define and perceptually hypothesize new aural atoms and synergetic structures. This ability allows them to extract increased amounts of information about sound parameters, structures, and relationships, which can yield new 1 Eldad Tsabary Aural atoms and structures: From electroacoustic ear training to analysis and back again Proceedings of the Electroacoustic Music Studies Network Conference The Art of Electroacoustic Music, Sheffield, June 2015 www.ems-network.org insights into sound organization. In this article I introduce the principles of this analytical ear training mechanism in the context of Ea studies. Primacy of the Ear Aural perception is primary in Ea practice. Fennelly (1967: 79) explains, “with the absence of available musical scores, the aural experience is the single point of departure for the analysis of electronic music.” Several other analysts have also raised the problem of the missing, hard- to-get, or incomplete musical score (i.e. precise instructions to performers or technicians who realize the music) in Ea music (see Stroppa, 1984; Camilleri and Smalley, 1998; Bossis, 2006; Clarke, 2012). Delalande (1998: 14) adds that Ea music analysis “presents the analyst with all problems simultaneously: no score, no system, and no ‘pre-segmented’ discrete units like notes.” But the aural nature of analysis in Ea is rooted more deeply; the primacy of the ear has been a foundational principle since the early history of Ea practice. Schaeffer (1957) sketched a research method, in which he posited that new aural potentialities – not technological ones – were the most revolutionary aspect of musique concrète. This is not to say that technological innovation has not been central to the field, but that its role has been most significant in provoking sonic innovations by Ea composers, performers, and tinkerers; and that these sonic innovations have lead to aural innovations (i.e. new instruments lead to new sounds, which can lead to new ways of hearing). The lacks of musical scores and theoretical and methodical standardization are likely products – not causes – of the nature of Ea practice: The field’s rapid evolution and drive for technological and aural innovation makes standardization difficult, and possibly unnecessary; and the lack of musical scores is due to the primarily aural nature of acousmatic experimentation – as well as the integration of the composer and performer roles, which annuls the need for performance scores. Ear Training and Analysis Back and Forth A brief overview of the definitions and purpose(s) of musical analysis may provide context for understanding the interdependence between analysis and aural training in Ea. According to Bent (1987: 528), music analysis is “the means of answering directly the question ‘how does it [the music] work?” Pople (2002: 18) suggests that the answer to Bent’s question depends on analysts’ interpretations, and proposes that analysis is fundamentally “an evidence based investigation.” He suggests that as the paradigms of knowledge shift, evidence may be “sought in places that weren’t evidential before” (Pople, 2002: 20). The term analysis comes from the Greek ana-luo, which means to dissolve (Stroppa, 1984), suggesting the process of breaking something into component parts. However, listing components cannot be considered a complete analysis without an element of structure, because parts alone do not tell us how the whole works. One recurring analytical principle in the literature involves the examination of units of analysis in the context of larger structures. Green (1965: 70) proposes that “analysis is the separation of a whole into its parts and the exploration of the relationship of these parts to the whole and to each other.” Similarly, Bent (1987: 1) poses that analysis is achieved through “the resolution of musical structure into relatively simpler constituent elements, and the investigation of the functions of those elements within that structure.” In summary, according to these sources analysis is concerned with units, hierarchically organized structures, and relationships. 2 Eldad Tsabary Aural atoms and structures: From electroacoustic ear training to analysis and back again Proceedings of the Electroacoustic Music Studies Network Conference The Art of Electroacoustic Music, Sheffield, June 2015 www.ems-network.org Aurally centred analysis and aural training are interdependent because analysis depends on the extraction of precise auditory information (improved by training) and because aural training expands to new skills with new audible parameters added by higher-level synergetic structures. To illustrate this principle, I will borrow an analogy from the tonal/metric domain, because it stands on firmer theoretical grounds than Ea structures. For example, the ability to differentiate between melodic perfect fourths and perfect fifths is required for discriminating between melodic motifs made from scale degrees 1-4-1 and 1-5-1 (assuming all other parameters are identical). But perceiving melodic motifs demands more than interval discrimination skills. Melodic motifs are not intervallic sequences – or even sequences of intervals, directions, and durations – because hierarchical structuring in music is synergistic. Structural units are not the sum of their parts; they have properties and effects other than those of their parts. The most important feature of synergistic structuring is that parts become wholes – ontological units that are different from their parts, with different properties. The oneness of the whole and its emergent properties depend on a purposeful organization (Corning, 2002). For example, melodic motifs – unlike intervals – may have a contour-driven flow (such as an upward motion followed by a downward motion). Moreover, in the context of a higher synergetic structure – say, a phrase – two identical motifs may be discernible by compositional function, such as one being a call and the other a response. Every structural level has its own parameters. Nevertheless, to perceive higher-level relationships with precision, lower-level discrimination skills are required; for instance, where one might have heard the call and response of the previous example as identical units, a more precise listener could, perhaps, recognize that the response’s concluding note was slightly longer. But lower- level discrimination skills are insufficient on their own. Listening must also involve parameters that emerge from higher-level synergetic structures. To use a linguistic analogy, one cannot learn words and sentences with only the skill to identify letters. Admittedly, this example is a simplification of the aural experience because it isolates parameters